13 years after he plotted régime change in Iraq, Blair & his mates are plotting régime change in the Labour Party

…..AND CHEMICAL ALI IS AT THE CENTRE OF IT

Tony Blair spent most of yesterday trying to look humble. Somehow, he managed to say that he had tried to do the right thing over Iraq, that he’d been proved wrong, and that intelligence had let him down….but he would do the same thing next time. As illogically dissembling as ever, what Blair failed to mention is that he and his partner in crime Alistair Campbell are up to their necks in a plot to stick a second yardbrush up the Labour Party’s posteria. Their goal: to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn.

You can never tell with The Canary whether you’re going to read truth or tosh, but it’s never less than lively and professional. They have a post up today – an extremely well-researched piece, actually – that continues the series proving a conclusive link between the PR agency Portland and all the usual Blairite suspects.

I’ve no idea who’s paying the Portland Bill, but it’s pretty obvious that, for the people working on the Régime Change account, it’s a labour of love. The agency – originally set up in 2001 by Tim Allan, a former adviser to Tony Blair – its senior echelons include lots of familiar names: the (executive) advisory council is made up of three members: Alastair Campbell, who needs no introduction beyond, “This is Alastair Campbell and he’s a shit”; Jimmy Leach, Blair’s former head of communications and a former executive editor at the Guardian in its sillier pc era; and Kitty Ussher, former Labour MP for Burnley, parliamentary private secretary to Margaret Hodge…and a writer for Peter Mandelson’s “Policy Network”.

So all those people between 1997 and 2010 who squandered the best opportunity for genuine neloiberal reversal, peace and health investment are there or thereabouts. All the truth-benders, BBC bullies, lie inventors, warmongers, NHS technology wasters, Attorney General throttlers and alleged accessories to ‘suicide’ are today engaged in overturning the biggest leadership landslide in Labour history….as the precursor to overturning the democratic majority who voted for Brexit. Because funnily enough, at the top of Portland sits Sir Stephen Wall, former EU adviser to Tony Blair.

The Canary has lots of smoking guns on offer: Portland has a wrecker mole in Jeremy Corbyn’s Whips Office. He rang shadow cabinet members and ministers, co-ordinating the resignations to try to cause maximum impact. Seemed orchestrated at the time to me: now we know it was, and who did it. Portland partner Kevin McKeever, who uses Twitter to slag off the Corbyn rally with stuff like ‘Went down to Parliament Sq to see the rally for myself. I saw a protest dominated by SWP, SA and others outside Lab’. And all told, 47 Portland employees are officialy Labour-affiliated employees. They coordinated the “Yvette for Labour” leadership campaign, were behind the Mirror’s front page calling for Corbyn to go, and associated with the website set up to campaign for Fabian Angela Eagle to become leader.

Many of us have doubts about Corbyn: he does have some unpleasant hard Left associates: those who always carry placards wanting to smash this and overrule that. I had a tweet runin with two of them last Monday: significantly, I was locked out of Twitter on a trumped up charge of ‘abuse’ the morning after. But Mr Corbyn was elected by a huge majority of Labour supporters sick of metro-Miliband bollocks, Burnham blather and the infantile manners of Ed Balls. This Campbell-driven Portland campaign is just another example of Black Arts skullduggery aimed at neutering the electorate….of creating an alternative narrative based on lies: like David Mellor shagging his lover in a Chelsea shirt; and of course, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

‘Remorseful Tony Blair’ is a contradictory impossibility: he’s still at it, he’ll never change, he has no ethics, and he is a magnet for other morally directionless beings like Campbell and Mandelson.

But all in all, the Labour Party is a series of oil-and-water psychiatric wards now: the remaining staff – still tolerated but no longer in charge – are thin on the ground. The Party is full of people calling themselves Labour who’d much rather be called things like Red Sky or, at the other extreme, Left Tories, Blue Labour and all the rest of it. Their sole commonality is a certainty of rectitude, and a rigid intolerance of any alternative ideology.

The Conservative Party is no better: it remains split over the EU and riven by grudge wars – from Gove’s revenge on Cameron to everyone’s intense dislike for Theresa Maniac. Yet they too seem to want the nastiest candidate to win.

Both Parties have been scheming to create the largest possible Establishment majority for overturning the Referendum result. Neither of them represent anything remotely resembling the mainstream of British sentiment: they are interested only in personal ego-inflation, and basking in the reflected glory of championing tiny minorities within a demcratic majority political system.

Only starving them of money and forcing them to adopt proportional representation will reformulate the archaic Party duopoly. Today, both solutions seem further away than ever.

24 thoughts on “13 years after he plotted régime change in Iraq, Blair & his mates are plotting régime change in the Labour Party”

Am I fantasising or is my memory accurate in saying Blair, just a few weeks prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq stated in Parliament that he would not invade Iraq if Hussein just showed him where the WMD were as it was NOT about regime change?

Secondly do other folk remember that immediately after the late 2002 UN resolution regarding Iraq first the US UN Ambassador followed by Greenstock, the UK UN Ambassador, both saying that the just passed resolution did NOT give the go ahead for an invasion and definitely a further UN resolution would be required before hostilities could commence.

Lastly did anyone hear radio5 this morning when an Exeter University Professor was interviewed and he could not apparently define a lie!

It made me wonder how low the bar is to become an expert, this guy appeared to be defending his present or future earnings as a spin merchant.

Blair’s deception even extended to getting Spain’s prime minister (not difficult because the nicest thing anyone has ever said re Aznar is that he was the “intellectual” heir to the Generalisimo) to try to fix the UN and influence public opinion in both the UK and Spain.
See: http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/07/07/inenglish/1467879224_196507.html

There will come a time when these people overstretch themselves, they always do, they can’t help themselves. The more they get away with, the more brazen they become.
Just another step closer to civil war, we are nicely aligned with a split down the middle, and a catalyst, i.e. the EU, what will be the spark?

I’m afraid Blair is menatlly ill. He shows many of the symptoms of a sociopath.

“Research has revealed that since a sociopath never conforms to the rules of the society, he or she is not bothered about the consequences of his or her actions. Such people at times are also able to inspire like minded people. Some of the other traits that are common in antisocial people are that they are usually intelligent and have a superficial charm and they are able to attain success using unscrupulous methods. Thus they can also never learn from their own mistakes and they do not hesitate to indulge in certain activities that are considered immoral and taboo by the society.”

When the historian, Charles A. Beard was asked about the lessons from history,
he said there were four:
1. The bee fertilizes the flower it robs.
2. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad with power.
3. The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small.
4. When it is dark enough, you can see the stars.

2&3 certainly apply to almost all politicians at the moment, the Blairite wing seem to be it total denial about the fact they have been well beaten in two elections , what could make them think 2020 could be different which of their amateur bunch of PPE graduates do they think they can put up against the Tories with any chance of success. Especially after Cameron’s boundary gerrymandering.
My favourite lesson has always been no 4 , maybe it’s not quite dark enough yet and the person who first sees the stars is maybe not around at the moment, but it does a fill one with hope.

However is you want the best description of the current parliament look no further than the speech on
the dissolution of the Long Parliament by Oliver Cromwell given to the House of Commons, 20 April 1653

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,
which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue,
and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew,
and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches,
and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage,
and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you?
Is there one vice you do not possess?
Ye have no more religion than my horse;
gold is your God; which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes?
Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place,
and turned the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves,
by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation;
you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed,
are yourselves gone! So!
Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!

The PLP is unelectable! Ian Austin MP showed is tapioca level to be bottom of the plate! many of the plp (Mainly those leading this action now) voted to go to war in Iraq, they sent soldiers of unequipped and without leadership to the goals they had!if these brave professionals had turned on there commanders and leaders like the plp then they would have been court martial and then shot! to abandon there duty to this nation in the way they have over lust for a grubby power struggle is a total disgrace.
They have learned nothing,having power is all they understand,the tories are no better! and none of them know what to do with that power other than to sell to the highest bidders to line there pockets!
And pay back the favours they used to ascend to power!

Although aimed at a juvenile audience, the Blair Rich Project still has the potential to terrify. Watching the bile-spewing heads revolve is not for those with a weak constitution which, after all, is what we’ve got.

The EU nincompoops apparently want to spend as much on the military as a % of GDP as the USA. God help us all…….it is part of their desire to project power globally. Where Napoleon and Hitler failed shall the Fourth Reich prevail, apparently…..I don’t think they’ll be invading Texas for oil any time soon, whatever……

Time for more referenda across Europe I think. Hungary, Holland, Italy, Denmark, France, Austria: show the EU what you think of them!

‘Oil and water’ doesn’t begin to describe the spectrum of political activism – there seen to be at least four or five identifiable political stereotypes, plus of course a few free thinkers of many colours. The core of the problem seems to be too few groupings (‘parties’) to adequately represent all, and hence the tendency for government to disintegrate whenever a crisis appears, and also the susceptibility to manipulation by groups like the ‘Fabians’ or to a far greater extent, the ‘Bilderbergers’. Right now the whole thing is up in the air, but of course will settle back to business as usual in a marginally changed form, once true Brexit has been successfully morphed into something else entirely (assuming no pitchforks and torches appear).

What seems desperately needed is a new ‘left of centre’ grouping to emerge, with proportional representation as its core aspiration. Almost nothing else is needed – the existence of PR would alone ensure that no extremists such as the Cameron tories or the Blairites will ever hold power again. The price would of course be schism and a continual dance of alliances and coalitions, but this would be nothing compared with the institutional corruption and idealogical incompetence that results from the present two-party, first-past-the-post system.

“for the people working on the Régime Change account, it’s a labour of love”

Either these people are being trodden on by some very rich and very powerful feet, or they are being paid a handsom sum. This is British politics we’re talking about here, not some la-la land democracy! These orchestrators know why they are doing something, and when they orchestrate it, they intend the message to be loud and clear:

“Corbyn won’t do as he’s told, so does not belong in politics, British or otherwise.”

They couldn’t shame him into standing down, not even with a few national headlines – and they don’t come cheap! The only alternative is to force him out. The problem here is that it’ll take a national election of Labour Party members to shift him.

It’s time that kind of silliness was changed, after all, who can profit from that kind of rule???

“Only starving them of money and forcing them to adopt proportional representation will reformulate the archaic Party duopoly. Today, both solutions seem further away than ever.” Obviously someone is getting something right in British politics: imagine the chaos of having little parties with representation. The cost associated with making sure they all toe the line would be enormous!

“To many people around the world, it was obvious that oil was a central issue, as Iraq itself had nearly a tenth of the world’s oil reserves, and together with its neighbouring countries nearly two thirds. There was a clear public interest in understanding how that affected UK decisions. Chilcot failed to explore it.

Buried in deep in volume 9 of the 2.6 million-word report, Chilcot refers to government documents that explicitly state the oil objective, and outlining how Britain pursued that objective throughout the occupation. But he does not consider this evidence in his analysis or conclusions. Oil considerations do not even appear in the report’s 150-page summary.

Section 10.3 of the report, in volume 9, records that senior government officials met secretly with BP and Shell on at several occasions (denied at the time) to discuss their commercial interests in obtaining contracts. Chilcot did not release the minutes, they were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (link). In unusually expressive terms for a civil service write-up, one of the meeting’s minutes began, “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there”…..

You have the problem correct, but PR is not really the answer unless the number of parties represented is well into double figures.

PR adopted under present circumstances would simply create a continuous cycling of Labour/LibDem and Tory/LibDem coalitions, not really any different at all. PR that generated four or five represented parties would mean the balance of power would inevitably devolve onto some obnoxious fringe party insisting on having their own particular pet prejudice pandered to, a prejudice that would never gain a democratic majority with the electorate.

The true answer is either to have every MP independent, no party affiliation at all allowed or, alternatively, the number of represented parties so large as to ensure that no stable coalition can ever be formed, or my own preference, that parliament can only propose legislation the actual vote on proposed Bills being done by a full plebiscite after exhaustive and public discussion. Of course, it would be necessary to have an educated and engaged population for that to work.

That spark is everyday now in something or other, long gone the days when you could go for months, nay years with no flashpoint.

Everything became joined up, an in any area a spark can set the lot off.

For me a glowing ember at the moment is Carney doing QE when the emergency need to do so is not yet justified. I do not care what the rest does if it goes below a 1:1 on the $ there is some argument for it but not until. If anything we don’t do anything on manipulating the £:$ because other countries will do it for us keep their competitive side so holding it up.

Skip to bottom, changing the narrative to BREXIT, Carney well knows that a financial crisis is mounting right now due to the failure of the LBMA’s levered structure enabled to a large extent by his own institution. So the need for CTRL-P on BREXIT is to con the population over gold kiting by the LMBA that it was a party too. So conned again … you are not going to see the CTRL-P it will be parked away from you like all the other QE that has already been stated on the recrod will not be unwound.

So where is my printing press? I want one then I can print for myself too.

How wacky is this idea? When they built this HAARP facility in Alaska (in spite of the weird claims it did exist) one of its research objectives was an earth-based tomographic scan – yes a 3d map of the Earth. How wild is it to figure out that they mapped the real extent of Middle East oil in the late 1990s and found that Safaniya*/Ghawar** were empty in Saudi and there was tons under Iraq?

@ Mark Deacon. Your printing press? Apparently, you can get a “Meccano set” (other brands available) 3D printer for about £30K. These days you can feed them scintererd metals, odds and ends from the garage, human remains, old CDs, total shite theories from the Einstein factory…. ad nauseam (apparently the most powerful additive) Thing is, this jumbo of a mumbos, this absurd concoction, this barmy outer limit of techno fantasy…. is……. possible, ok no need for some of my gross additions!

Here I call upon the good offices of NASA (aka Never A Straight Answer)…… regarding the fascinating history of Monatomic Gold. Delve deeply before you blow me away. Sir Flinders Petrie mentioned it….. The British Museum has some of his horde.

When you have delved, ask yourself why the Precious Metals, Rare Earth Metals and Exotic Metals Group, along with research into Superconductivity and Graphene are so restricted?

As for the genius Tesla … who was the Zionist spy in his lab? Grandad Bush, real name Scherf….. oh the same US family that gave us Brits the wonderkid Dubbya, who blackmailed Miranda into betraying UK. The revelations about Chilcot are bad enough…. Miranda? A CIA groom, along with cherry picked wife, geddit? Google? As that veteran investigative journalist, Spivey, who exposed the Drummer Rigby hoax, says…… you could not make this shit up!

As the Iraq invasion war was about securing oil supplies for the West, prompted by the false premise of Peak oil. so was the Syrian war about gas pipelines via Syria territory, to give access to the Qatari and Saudi supplies to Europe.
Qatari and Saudi gas would undercut Russian near monopoly and undermine the Russian economy.
This Syrian war on Assad was long in the incubation from 2003 and the culprits include Britain,France, Turkey Qatar,Saudi ,israel and the USA.
Isis is just a proxy, used in Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria,under different names, same method of operation, same logistics, facilitators and weapon suppliers.
There is a WW3 in progress between Washington and Russia/China. Just that proxies, such as ISIS, NATO and Ukraine are the patsies for Washingtons hegemonic ambitions.

J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog
As the tenth anniversary of 7th July 2005 materialises much will be written and broadcast around the official ‘narrative’ of what happened that fateful day. Ten years on and you might think that there would not be much more that could be learned about what happened. Yet, on 6th July 2015, we learn from the former head of the Counter Terrorism Command at Scotland Yard between 2002 and 2008, Peter Clarke, that:
How prescient a scenario this was, mirroring as it did a Panaroma ‘documentary’ from 2004, as well as crisis management exercises that were running on the day of 7th July 2005 that were also operating around a similar scenario. The idea of a series of explosions across the underground network seems to have been very common currency for quite some time among the anti-terror brigades.

J7 have received the usual barrage of requests for comment in recent weeks from various media organisations who are forced to care, for a brief time at least, about the events of 7/7 by dint of the fact that an anniversary is on the cards. Some requests have provided questions to which they would like responses from the J7 team of researchers. One such journalist is Jack Sommers of the Huffington Post. In response to his questions and those of other journalists asking for comment on similar issues, J7 offers the following.

Do you regard the official version of events of what happened, on the balance of probabilities, as the most plausible? If not, what version of events do you find most plausible

It’s not up to J7 to provide plausible explanations of what happened; our job is to ask the right questions and try to elicit truthful or revealing answers from the authorities. There still exists the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty and therefore the burden of proof is on the State to prove its case for the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Ten years on the State has provided no evidence, other than that which is purely circumstantial, speculative or presumed that would secure a successful conviction of the four accused. It took almost 4 years for the authorities to fudge a response to a Freedom of Information request submitted 13 days after 7th July 2005 requesting the basis of how the alleged bombers’ ID was apparently determined.

Has the momentum behind J7 grown or shrunk in recent years since the inquest into the 52 people killed? Why?

The same momentum will always be there in a search for the truth of what happened. 7/7 is not unique in this regard. The same momentum and movement for truth as possessed by the grand-daughter of Alice Wheeldon who is still pursuing justice after the setting-up of her grandmother in 1916 by MI5. Records and information was hidden behind official secrecy as part of a concerted State cover-up that ran for over 80 years. The same momentum as the relatives of the 21 killed during the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings, who have never even had an inquest into the deaths of their loved ones, while the state incarcerated innocent people for over 16 years, as a government 75 year ban on disclosure of relevant material to the case continues.

Truth is a powerful thing and those who seek truth and justice are persistent in their quest and, as history as shown, that quest is passed down through the generations.
What aspect of the official narrative do you find least convincing and does this make you doubt the narrative overall?

The official narrative is a deeply flawed document and has been amended as a result of information uncovered by J7. Secret and in camera hearings during the Inquest by a specially appointed privy councillor judge cast further doubt on the transparency of the process and the veracity of the story told in the ‘narrative’. It is worth remembering that the definition of a narrative is this: “a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.” We believe that a story that might be truthful or fictitious is not sufficient explanation for an event the magnitude of 7/7, nor is it sufficient to convict the accused without trial.

Why is an inquest into the 4 men accused of carrying out 7/7 important? Why do you think they have they not happened?

It is not only important, it is a requirement of Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. J7 are still waiting for investigative journalists imbued with the tenacity to uncover the facts around quite why the State has failed to conduct an inquest into the deaths of the accused, as well as all the other issues that exist around the truth of what happened on 7/7. J7 submitted a request for a resumption of the inquests into the deaths of the 4 accused to Lady Justice Hallett during the 7/7 Inquests proceedings.

The inquests into 52 of the deaths on 7th July 2005 commenced over five years after the deaths occurred and only after the government tried to implement the power to use ‘suitably trained and cleared coroners and counsel’ to undertake inquests without juries. André Rebello, Coroner for the City of Liverpool, honorary secretary of the Coroners’ Society and the executive officer of the Coroners’ Society confirmed that there had been no consultation with the coroners themselves and was asked in 2008, “What is your view of the proposal that inquests in some circumstances should be held before suitably trained and cleared coroners appointed by the Secretary of State?” His response is telling:
The measures incorporating secret juries and specially appointed coroners passed through Parliament by a slim majority of only eight votes, on Thursday, 12 November 2009. The process was assisted no less by a procedural farce engineered by Jack Straw. The procedural farce included a reported number of Labour MPs who apparently voted the wrong way by mistake.

How do you respond to those who say the promotion of alternative theories has been upsetting for survivors of the attacks? What about those who have attacked those survivors personally? (Such as this: rachel-north-liar-and-charletane.blogspot.ie/)

J7 has always walked the fine line between the official doctrine contained in the narrative and those who ostensibly question the official story but posit their own evidence-free pet theories about what happened. J7 research and writings are based on facts that we have established through continued research, endless FOI requests, and information placed into the public domain by the authorities along the way.

Have you ever received support from either survivors of 7/7 or the relatives of those killed? If so, what was it?

Yes. Overwhelmingly the feedback we have received from those directly affected by 7/7 have been supportive of our quest to get the truth of what actually happened. Further evidence of this can be seen from the many occasions when J7’s research was cited or used during the course of the 7/7 Inquests and presented before the court by the representatives of the bereaved. Survivors and relatives also want to know the truth about what happened and their loved ones. If anything, the truth about what happened is vastly more important to them than it is to those of us who do not accept the official narrative for the reasons we have carefully and painstakingly documented in depth over the last decade.

Ten years on from the events in London on July 7th 2005, what we know about them remains exactly as it was at the conclusion of the 7/7 Inquests back in 2011, which we highlighted again on the 6th anniversary. Just some of these are mentioned below for anyone that might think an event of the significance of 7/7 should be justly and judiciously investigated to uncover the truth about what happened and how it happened.

Without a full and independent Public Inquiry, held outside of the restrictive remit of the Inquiries Act 2005, it remains the case that:
The bodies of Tanweer and Khan were not included in the ‘LifeExtinct’ body counts carried out on 7th July by Dr Morgan Costello
The police viewing of the Luton Station CCTV footage was conducted as early as 10th July, despite the official account clearly stating that the men were identified on CCTV at King’s Cross Thameslink on 11th July, and that it was this discovery that led the investigation to Luton as a possible site of interest.
There exist no recorded sightings of three of the men, Khan Tanweer and Lindsay, after the footage from King’s Cross Thameslink, some way from the Underground tube network. Apparently, a temporary CCTV system was installed at King’s Cross underground and malfunctioned for the 20 crucial minutes between 8.30am and 8.50am. Additionally, there is no CCTV footage showing the three from any other cameras. This means that there is absolutely no CCTV evidence places three of the accused anywhere on the London Underground network on the morning of 7 July 2005.
No CCTV from pre-incidence tube carriages has been released, despite this CCTV apparently existing, and despite it being crucial evidence which could confirm or deny that three of the men boarded the carriages they are alleged to have boarded. Why has it not been released? This CCTV should also have been made available to Colonel Mahoney when the expensive modelling of likely injuries sustained by the deceased was conducted to make up for the fact that no internal post mortems of the victims were conducted; the lack of post mortems itself being a jarring anomaly.
No CCTV exists from McDonald’s showing whether Hussain actually used the premises to insert a new 9v battery into his apparently malfunctioning bomb. It was revealed during the inquests that the store manager can be seen on CCTV footage actually turning off the CCTV system before Hussain entered.
No CCTV exists of Hasib Hussain on either of the two buses he is alleged to have boarded. There is no footage of Hussain aboard the number 91 bus, nor the number 30 bus he is alleged to have destroyed, nor is there any street or traffic camera footage showing him boarding either of the buses.
There is a huge discrepancy between the explosives allegedly used, as given in sworn evidence to the Jean Charles de Menezes Inquest, and the evidence that Clifford Todd gave to the 7/7 Inquests. Clearly, not everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet about a significant aspect of 7/7.
There is strong evidence in the public domain to suggest that at the heart of the story behind 7/7 lay at least three operatives for both British and American Intelligence, one of whom served an insanely short period of time in a US prison, before being quietly released, for crimes far greater than the crimes of those his testimonies put behind bars for far longer sentences.
These questions and many, many more can be found on the 7/7 Inquests blog

Without a doubt the State itself will never provide answers to these questions without the dogged persistence of independent researchers in their quests for truth, nor until investigative journalists – if such beings still exist – have the courage to honestly start examining the many unanswered questions that exist and those which are raised by the complete lack of conclusive evidence produced in the story (for that is what a ‘narrative’ is) so far. Until then we’ll all have to put up with the ‘churnalism’ of official State-dictated ‘narratives’ that we have all come to know and despise.

Meanwhile, J7’s quest for the truth about what happened on the day of 7th July 2005 continues.